I do not like the ideea of skill based MM. Player skill or wn8 should be completly ignored by MM. Random battle...

That is because you are above average and you dont like to meet people like you as enemy, is much easier to fight with tomatoes.
I,m a 50% wr with 1150 wn8 player like about 60% players of this game and today i have

Session statistics:

Wins/Battles:10 (29)(34.5%) and 900 wn8 because i have played bad tanks and 90% of games my team died in first 3 minutes.
I want to ask you something. You want to be a king without of kingdom?You want to be the king of bots?

Then we will talk about other issues, if it will be still necessary....

TBC, I do not mind be some times -2 tier, if then I'll be approximately the same amount of times +2 tier.

TBH, I do not use XVM, because both mine computers: i5-4460 + 750Ti + HDD and i7-6500U + M7 R370 + SSD are too old and crappy, so I do not know in advance that "it's already lost before the beginning'...

Anyways, I do not mind to be in a weaker team, if then I'll be in a stronger team approximately the same amount of times (statistically it should be so, if You do not believe in conspiracy theories), in both cases I'll simply try to do mine best.

Post scripts are only for giving some information, not for a further discussion, O'K?

p. s. eekeeboo have told about some issues of "skill based" MM. For example, Yesterday in 3 battles with ELC EVEN 90 I had ~750 DMG and ~3800 assist average, it means ~1500 WN8 and ~11000 WGR..... Which rating to use? For what period? What statistics to use: of each tank, of class, of tier, or overall (I have re-bought some tanks after 3-4 Years with 'red' statistics and now they are 'green', 'dark green' or 'blue', but they were 'red' when I restarted to play with them....)? etc., etc., etc. Too many problems....

p. p. s. You may not believe, but I have in mine hangar waiting for fixed MM templates still with 0 battles: Scorpion G, Defender, IS-3A, Caermarvon X and Progetto 46 (which were in loot boxes or given for marathons), despite some of them are a little bit OP (and some more tier 6-8 good premiums which are only "collecting dust" in the garage after 9.18....). Till then the main mine "farming" and "fun" vehicles will be premium and standard tier 8 LT's.....

... I think wg should think how to make every tier from like t5 special and unique. Atm t10 and t9 are unique. t8 prints creds. So you just need to do something with mid tiers. Like prems would for example gain more crew xp, bonds or get some unique missions and so on.

Very good idea. However, take into account its developers will not be easy, as their main idea - the player must pump tanks and strive to play at higher levels. (this allows the company to get more profit and donates)
Therefore, sadly, there will be no separate "enticing offers" to play at levels 4-7, let alone 1-3.

That is because you are above average and you dont like to meet people like you as enemy, is much easier to fight with tomatoes.
I,m a 50% wr with 1150 wn8 player like about 60% players of this game and today i have

Session statistics:

Wins/Battles:10 (29)(34.5%) and 900 wn8 because i have played bad tanks and 90% of games my team died in first 3 minutes.
I want to ask you something. You want to be a king without of kingdom?You want to be the king of bots?

I have 1445 wn8, 53% winrate and 2 days ago i had about 13 consecutive defeats. Sometimes i finish top xp, sometimes i have 0 damage. And still dont want skill based MM.

If I understand correctly, current MM implementation was good enough for queue distribution as of date of its release, but it broke because queue distribution changed over time.

To me, adding more templates sounds like just adapting the MM for the current queue distribution - meaning it will be good for another year or so and will brake again as the queue changes, because algorithm is essentially the same.

Please do implement it if that makes the situation even a bit better.

I would like to suggest following idea for future testing:

When a player enters the queue, randomly assign a position (s)he should be placed at and then proceed with current MM implementation with that placement in mind. That position could be more (1-15) or less (top, middle, bottom) specific, depending how much time it would take to form a match (the less specific the faster MM). You could think of it as the current MM is using only 1 position called "anywhere".

In the long run, players will have nearly equal number of games played in each position thanks to statistics and randomness. It should also mitigate playing +2 tier too often, as that would mean you were placed near bottom constantly.

Any FPS titles for one, League of Legends... World of Warcraft PVP. They don't mind/care because it's part of the game and encouragement to improve and be more skillful.

the "encouragement to improve and be more skillful", is something yet to be seen in the wot casual hordes.

also, most other online games offer a wider variety of tactics on how to apporeach the enemy. wot has its corridors and strict UP v OP situations with a huge chance of rng just kicking your testicles as soon as you risk fighting an OP enemy.

td;dr:

- all other online team deathmatch games = rock/paper/scissors-principle

- wot = rock/scissors-principle

11:14 Added after 3 minutes

eekeeboo, on 07 February 2019 - 06:38 PM, said:

You might not mind, but plenty of games with long MM queue and their player base would like to disagree.

….as long as u don´t adress one of the major problem with mm it still gonna be broken!!!

People play for diffrent reasons and have diffrent SKILL, fully normal!!!

...as long as u dont take the skill of individual players in to acount the bad players dont get a chance to learn, becouse they are always killed fast and the good players just use them as cannon-fodder to get more points added to their skill.

If u lose with 1-15....maybe 2-15 its not fun.....and if 1 of every 4 game is a lose with AT BEST 5-15 its not so much about the tanks, it is HOW U PLAY them and learn them and the maps….

U need Three factors for fixing mm...

1: Equal number of TIER....1-10

2: Equal number of type….(Arty, Heavy, light etc)

3: Personal skill…..bad vs bad and good vs good….

(4: Platoon….ONLY if their winrate is over 52%, otherwise how many platoons in each team dont matter at all in my experience)

I understand the problem with skill-based in MM but i Think that those who have bots to get good numbers/raiting whould "dissapear" becouse they will only meet good players/unicom and they wouldnt get so great numbers anymore and i Think that it will at least decrease the bots as well.

Another problem is how many of each "skill" in cue….longer waiting….and maybe certains times on a day (at night etc) and periods ( in summer) the personal skill number have to be overlooked or handled in Another way…..

Dont have all solutions but mm dosent work now the way it is at least!!!

Changes can't happen soon enough. The MM is really dreadful at present and if anything seems to be getting worse.

I have no idea why this issue is so diificult to improve. I thought they were testing giving priority for +1/-1 over +2/-2 games? That would improve things straight away.

+1/ -1 does not matter if you have 2 3 tomato as top tier while they have good players as top tier.You can have defenders top tier, if they rush and die in first 2 minutes and you don't have good players to carry because all good players are in enemy team , you will lose in 5 minutes mostly.I have seen many games where a good player can kill 4-5 tomato with no problem , so in my opinion a minimum balance of teams regarding skill should be done to get more time and more satisfaction, even if you lose at last you have some time to fight, to have some fun.

Definition of mistake - an act that is misguided or wrong. Exactly what the 9.18 MM is. It may well have cured a few issues with the previous MM but it created a whole lot more problems. I'm guessing if WG ran a poll on which MM players prefered 95% of us would say pre 9.18.

We also know from the CC meeting at Tankfest that there was meant to be an algorithm in 3/5/7 mm to stop players from being constantly bottom tier. This wasn't added so I would say that was a massive mistake.

I would have more respect for WG if they actually came out and admitted they made a mistake rather than try and gloss over it with corporate PR nonsense.

You should watch the video.

Gixxer66, on 08 February 2019 - 01:02 PM, said:

I cant speak for "most" or "all" players but from my perspective the trade off of longer queue times for +1 / -1 MM would be worthwhile. +2 / -2 MM should be dead and buried, the imbalance between the -2 and +2 is far to big, even "special ammo" doesn't fully balance it. There are too many overtuned vehicles and too many undertuned / powercrept ones to make +2/-2 MM truely viable.

I have played a lot of WoW where queue times can hit 15 - 20 minutes for a random BG ( depending on what level / faction you queue ) so it's not just hot air

I wonder why Frontlines is so popular, I imagine a part of that is balance being single tier only. I can't imagine it would be half as popular if it was a 3 tier spread.

Having stated the above I'll still be happier not being bottom Tier 75% of the time if the new MM works.

That is your perspective and yours alone. Unless you're able to pay and play to counter all the people who would leave because of long queue times, which would happen and has happened in games like WoWP, the suggestion is at best non-applicable. Part of FL popularity is just as much the novelty, respawn and balance and objective large scale combat as much as tier 8 only games. Like Grand, battles are popular at tier 10 for many because of similar aspects.

Xandania, on 08 February 2019 - 05:53 PM, said:

I can only speak for myself, but I have no issue waiting for over 2 minutes to get into a tier 1 game in the middle of the night when battles at high tiers seem horrid and I want to relax. I can only recommend the Medium I with the top gun and full HE loadout to relieve stress - if you win, lose, carry or fail just does not matter at tier 1

2 minutes is a LONG time to wait for a game, it quickly adds up and sitting there in the queue with nothing to do but wait would put a lot of people off of staying in the game. Because waiting that long becomes an effort, fundamental game design involves putting your payers into the gameplay asap and keeping them there for as long as possible.

Elhazzared, on 08 February 2019 - 08:16 PM, said:

Learn that we want is the END of tier dispersion.

Yes, we realise that having the matchmaker get us into battle quickly or at all is the ideal situation. But how about you do something like. 30 seconds to try and get into an all same tier battle, then 30 more seconds to do a 1 tier dispersion and failing that then up to 2 tiers dispersion. That would make such a massive difference that people would actually wat to play!

And you also have a system that's currently in place where people like yourself who played the system 21,000 times.

13:36 Added after 4 minutes

StinkyCamper, on 09 February 2019 - 07:13 AM, said:

Took them only 10 years to see that MM is wrong. Meanwhile with the tier 8 premium invasion i do not believe that tier 8 MM will ever be fixed.

I think you should take the time to look at the changes that were made in the game during that time.... Then you may want to reconsider your statement.

sultanson, on 09 February 2019 - 12:04 PM, said:

I'm actually not in favour of skill based match making. Epic carry of games would rarely happen since the teams would never be unbalanced.

Just make +2/-2 happen less often.

That's something you may see (if all goes well) with the new templates!

13:38 Added after 6 minutes

EliteMeidling, on 10 February 2019 - 11:11 AM, said:

the "encouragement to improve and be more skillful", is something yet to be seen in the wot casual hordes.

also, most other online games offer a wider variety of tactics on how to apporeach the enemy. wot has its corridors and strict UP v OP situations with a huge chance of rng just kicking your testicles as soon as you risk fighting an OP enemy.

td;dr:

- all other online team deathmatch games = rock/paper/scissors-principle

- wot = rock/scissors-principle

11:14 Added after 3 minutes

now these polls i'd like to have you show me

You see this every time a person dies and they wonder why or they want to shoot someone and they bounce, they will re-aim to a green point. That there is someone learning to aim better at the tank in the future.

fundamental game design involves putting your payers into the gameplay asap and keeping them there for as long as possible.

Firs part is wrong - in fact the game design must consider the fun you achieve playing that game and when you are slaughter is no fun or when you slaughter.
Second part is ok and with fun that we should get when we play the game i consider it will take us to that necessary skilled balanced MM.
I can give you a example- diablo 3 has died after hard core players ask blizz to shut down AH. They have listen those and they have been only 25% from all d3 players- now they remained with them because almost all players quit..
The same mistakes will be here too - WG will listen pro players that they dont want skilled ballance and they will remain with them because all occasional players all medium weak players will leave day by day and i dont think more than 30% players have more than 50% Wr.
I can give you another example - Poe - they earn money not like WG because players became frustrated and buy p2w items to get better but contrary they pay GG because they have done a great job with that game.

In a perfect world with smart developers WOT should the POE road not D3 road, they should listen all those zillion thread where people ask them to ballance players regarding skill at the end of template.
Anyway i have seen many games buried by the fact that devs dont listen community and i meant the big part of comunity not hard core players, and it wont be the last one.

Someone has a point here -in 8 years they could not understand what is about with this mm why they will do it now , if they don't implement this now , later will be impossible since game bleed players and they will not have this big pool of players to try that,
My advice is to try to try a skilled balance - if they screwed up and i,m sure that they wont , - they can blame us because we ask that.They should implement that at list a month and see the feedback what they have to loose?

Firs part is wrong - in fact the game design must consider the fun you achieve playing that game and when you are slaughter is no fun or when you slaughter.
Second part is ok and with fun that we should get when we play the game i consider it will take us to that necessary skilled balanced MM.
I can give you a example- diablo 3 has died after hard core players ask blizz to shut down AH. They have listen those and they have been only 25% from all d3 players- now they remained with them because almost all players quit..
The same mistakes will be here too - WG will listen pro players that they dont want skilled ballance and they will remain with them because all occasional players all medium weak players will leave day by day and i dont think more than 30% players have more than 50% Wr.
I can give you another example - Poe - they earn money not like WG because players became frustrated and buy p2w items to get better but contrary they pay GG because they have done a great job with that game.

In a perfect world with smart developers WOT should the POE road not D3 road, they should listen all those zillion thread where people ask them to ballance players regarding skill at the end of template.
Anyway i have seen many games buried by the fact that devs dont listen community and i meant the big part of comunity not hard core players, and it wont be the last one.

Someone has a point here -in 8 years they could not understand what is about with this mm why they will do it now , if they don't implement this now , later will be impossible since game bleed players and they will not have this big pool of players to try that,
My advice is to try to try a skilled balance - if they screwed up and i,m sure that they wont , - they can blame us because we ask that.They should implement that at list a month and see the feedback what they have to loose?

Exactly. Where's the fun in being in the queue?

It's not about not understanding what's wrong with MM, understanding what's wrong and finding the solution, testing it and deploying it are very different. Skilled balance is not the solution many people think it is, this is as a player, not WG. I've played A LOT of skill-based mm games and only in a few circumstances has it worked, while introducing a whole new level of issues.

Maybe the next mm can make the difference between heavys and superheavys and autoloaders plus max 1 arty per match because arty its a real cancer in this game with a 3 artys in a game you cant do a damn thing because you are a permanent stun wherever you hide think at this wg developers and put some real brain in next maps because all the maps you made in this past few months are s.... maps excuse my vulgarity but this is the pure truth

It's not about not understanding what's wrong with MM, understanding what's wrong and finding the solution, testing it and deploying it are very different. Skilled balance is not the solution many people think it is, this is as a player, not WG. I've played A LOT of skill-based mm games and only in a few circumstances has it worked, while introducing a whole new level of issues.

Sorry but I think there is a difference between the reality what is toled to us and that is the reason to this MM. The reason presented to us is the short queue time, but I am convinced that the real reason is the paying customers. WG rewards the paying customer with better MM and better RNG. I know is hard to prove this, but this does not block me to have this opinion. So if you want to be a better player in WoT you just to have to spend more money . Is that simple this is a pay to win game. Being good in a pay to win game does not only shows that you spent enough money. Much bigger companies/publishers (Blizzard, EA Sports) work in this way. For them killing a game by simply being greedy is not a problem since they have other ones. Since the only real success of WG is WoT, killing this game may also mean the end of WG as well.

Sorry but I think there is a difference between the reality what is toled to us and that is the reason to this MM. The reason presented to us is the short queue time, but I am convinced that the real reason is the paying customers. WG rewards the paying customer with better MM and better RNG. I know is hard to prove this, but this does not block me to have this opinion. So if you want to be a better player in WoT you just to have to spend more money . Is that simple this is a pay to win game. Being good in a pay to win game does not only shows that you spent enough money. Much bigger companies/publishers (Blizzard, EA Sports) work in this way. For them killing a game by simply being greedy is not a problem since they have other ones. Since the only real success of WG is WoT, killing this game may also mean the end of WG as well.

I've played for 5 months w/o premium account till the the last December's loot boxes.

I found no differences You are talking about while playing with or without premium account....

So, this Your conspiracy theory should be false......

Besides, I had to wait for some battles in Ranked for more than 2 minutes with LT.

Maybe some more other videos then too with good consequences for their actions on battlefields?

I understand, and i look att these videos. The one u sent was good!!

But the problem is that soooo many dont do this, dont bother or just sux!! This weekend i had a winrate of 27%.....(normally 48,5-49%)!!!

Very often i stood alone againt 10-14 enemys jumping me, having a x-mas becouse my "TEAMMATES" died like flies in first 2,5-4 min!!!!!!!

I say that if there is gonna be system for Points use it in the mm as well becouse people have diffret skill and reason for playing…..and ending up beeing a punsch-bag for good/unicom players kills the game and makes people upset.

That is because you are above average and you dont like to meet people like you as enemy, is much easier to fight with tomatoes.
I,m a 50% wr with 1150 wn8 player like about 60% players of this game and today i have

Session statistics:

Wins/Battles:10 (29)(34.5%) and 900 wn8 because i have played bad tanks and 90% of games my team died in first 3 minutes.
I want to ask you something. You want to be a king without of kingdom?You want to be the king of bots?

I TOTALLY agree with u...…..!!!!!!!!!!! Nice to hear some have same experience and "look at it" as i do....(this weekend winrate 27% becouse team gets killed in first 2,5-4 min and then 10-14 tanks makes u theire pinata...…

Sorry but I think there is a difference between the reality what is toled to us and that is the reason to this MM. The reason presented to us is the short queue time, but I am convinced that the real reason is the paying customers. WG rewards the paying customer with better MM and better RNG. I know is hard to prove this, but this does not block me to have this opinion. So if you want to be a better player in WoT you just to have to spend more money . Is that simple this is a pay to win game. Being good in a pay to win game does not only shows that you spent enough money. Much bigger companies/publishers (Blizzard, EA Sports) work in this way. For them killing a game by simply being greedy is not a problem since they have other ones. Since the only real success of WG is WoT, killing this game may also mean the end of WG as well.

You may be convinced, that doesn't mean it's fact. And no, there is no different MM to paying vs non-paying customers, or better RNG, this is tinfoil sales propaganda at its finest. I can't stop you from trying to use the worlds supply of tinfoil on such things, but I must point out it's not true.